Greetings to Anthony WM3T from Bonnie KQ6XA,
My comments and answers to your questions are included below:
Anthony WM3T wrote:
I was on 14.100.4 from 2005-2341z Saturday.
Technically, Anthony, your signal's occupied bandwidth was
approximately 14100.1 kHz to 14100.4 kHz.
Had I
At 03:44 PM 9/26/06, Dave Bernstein wrote:
So my longwinded answer to your question, Bill, is the human operator
is at fault, as he or she is ignoring the band plan.
Given normal circumstances, I'd certainly agree with you, Dave.
But a more relevant question might be this: would there be any
At the bottom of all this, Mike, is the golden rule of amateur radio:
never transmit on a frequency that is already in use. Whether we
individually agree or disagree with the decision, the IARU, ARRL, and
FCC (via its STAs for the US-based beacons) authorized the creation
of the beacon network
Comments below...
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings to Anthony WM3T from Bonnie KQ6XA,
Hi Bonnie.
It is nice to know that you didn't do it intentionally :)
Standing up and admitting it, and deciding to change your
operating
hm
Is the purpose of a beacon not to help someone determine just what the
propagation conditions are on a particular day between various parts
of the world?
If one hears a ham transmitting as part of an actual QSO, would this
not also provide the exact same information?
I fail to
At 11:51 PM 9/25/06, Patrick Soileau wrote:
I fail to see where beacons are more important than QSOs.
They're not. Which is why the FCC rules do not permit US stations to
operate automatically controlled beacons on HF; and why W6WX and
KH6YY require STAs for their beacon operations.
73,
Mike
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:40:54 -0700, Chris Jewell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether the FCC (and other national administrations) treat violating
an IARU Region band plan as violating the good amateur practice
provision of the rules is unclear to me. However, an OO notice, even
1. it is often difficult to determine an operator's location from his
or her callsign. TO5DX might be operating from any French territory.
Anyone using my signal as an indication of propagation to California
will reach the wrong conclusion.
2. The IARU beacons transmit at known power levels
Beacons are allocated space in all three IARU regional band plans.
This is as much to protect live operators from being QRM'd by beacons
as it is to protect beacon users from QRM from live operators.
Given that the beacons don't have busy frequency detectors and
pragmatically couldn't QSY even
Dave Bernstein wrote:
So my longwinded answer to your question, Bill, is the human operator
is at fault, as he or she is ignoring the band plan.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
Seems reasonable when explained that way.
While it is not a problem for people with modern radios
and well calibrated
.
Like I said, maybe it's time for the beacon system to move to the next level
too.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
- Original Message -
From: Michael Keane K1MK
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY Hall of Shame
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, expeditionradio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RTTY Hall of Shame
Here is a list of some of the RTTY operators transmitting
on the international IARU beacon frequency 14100.0kHz today.
73---Bonnie KQ6XA
Saturday 23 SEP 2006
WM3T/4 (repeat offender)
Anthony,
Is a 1KHz guard band really required? At 22 WPM, these beacons are not very
wide bandwidth-wise, something like 88 Hz. So, if you were operating at
14100.4 you were not really interfering - as if they ran a very narrow
filter they would be able to hear the CW beacons with no QRM from
Whilst your list can be construed as informative, contentious,
destructive etc etc depending on your point of view, it really
highlights the nonsense of trying to maintain a beacon system in the
middle of a very active band. Whilst education should work, surely
95% of the problem could have
PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dav1dSm1th
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 23:07
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY Hall of Shame
Whilst your list can be construed as informative, contentious,
destructive etc etc depending on your point of view, it really
highlights the nonsense
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Dav1dSm1th Sent:
Sunday, September 24, 2006 23:07 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re:
RTTY Hall of Shame
Whilst your list can be construed as informative, contentious,
destructive etc etc
Could not agree more. Unless some infraction of the rules are being
made, it is highly improper for any ham to criticize another ham for
their legal operations.
To my knowledge, the amateur radio rules here in the U.S. only restrict
the 14.100 frequency from use by the fully automatic 500 Hz
I asked a while back about how many logging and contesting programs
have band plans in them. Given that 14.100 is in the IARU Band Plan, we
should be encouraged to follow it.
Leigh/WA5ZNU
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW
Sent:
Sunday, September 24, 2006 23:07 To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re:
RTTY Hall of Shame
Whilst your list can be construed as informative, contentious,
destructive etc etc depending on your point of view, it really
Hi!
Inspite of the global characteristics of this Group, wich I proudly
subscribe, most of the messages are writtten by US citizens, regarding US
rules and US practices and US bandplan (Region 2).
However most of the writers forget that there are two other IARU Regions and
National Bandplans.
Dave Cole (NK7Z/NNN0RDO) writes:
...
Unless there has been a rule change, enforcement of this must be on a
voluntary basis, period, I saw a post about involving the OOs, and the FCC.
Has this frequency been officially allocated? If not, then involving an OO
would be real abuse of power,
Paul Elder wrote:
Certainly this is not a good thing, but wouldn't
it be more advantageous to instruct these folks
privately rather than post this list where it
really serves no benefit? Even if they happen
to be members of this group and would read this
post, is this they way to
If 14.100 turns out to be a particular problem, maybe an automated
webpage archive of all text decoded from 14.100 (in various modes) woukd
be useful.
I did an SSTV archive page once, but I had to discontinue it because of
all of the P0RN images... I didn't want that on my website.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There certainly have been plenty of reports of
callsign-unidentifiable Pactor-like signals QRMing
...
doc, KD4E
bibleseven
I have not seen any pactor-like signals on 14100.0. All the
interfering stations have been
There certainly have been plenty of reports of
callsign-unidentifiable Pactor-like signals QRMing
... doc, KD4E
I have not seen any pactor-like signals on 14100.0. All the
interfering stations have been conventional RTTY FSK.
Bonnie KQ6XA
Interference between modes is not limited to
Paul Elder wrote:
We've all made such mistakes in the past and many will continue
to do so, but this is not the way to handle poor operating
practices.
I don't have a Wouff Hong laying around the shack to use.
There have been Lid Lists since the early days of ham radio.
Bonnie KQ6XA
.
26 matches
Mail list logo
